Ironclad base variant will be the better ship and daily driver for small group play over the Assault variant IMO. More standard day to day utility and interesting ways to make unique gameplay for the group. The Assault is to big IMO for its role outside of true scale military operations and those I see only happening through AI NPC generated scenarios. A smaller ship than even the Hercules that can carry a Nova tank and a dozen marines would be much more useful as you'd be able to deploy right up close to the enemy or in hard to reach locations safe from enemies retaliation strikes.
Yeah I find the Ironclad base variant to be more useful as well the room is nice for group operations and its just a good hauler that sits in between the C2 and the Hull-C
@@AchillesStyx you brought up a lot of good points and you seem to have some skill in mathematics and design. In my opinion lean into that. Watching this I could not help but feel there was a wealth of knowledge waiting to be shared.
@@AchillesStyx These are my thoughts on the Ironclad variants. The base variant should be more expensive than the assault variant. The base is a cargo ship. When handheld tractor beam utility is reduced, this will become a valuable feature to have. The assault variant does not have tractor beams and is likely to become just a ground assault delivery ship in the future due to this. In the event that you have to do a hot drop with ground assault vehicles, you will need extra ships, not extra guns. Both variants are likely to perform poorly in the atmosphere, making them equivalent to shooting the broad side of a barn. As you will need support to deliver ground vehicles, the base variant, with its cargo capacity and ability to deliver two extra tanks, is the better option. Repairing ground vehicles is currently pointless; they are either operational or destroyed. In the future, when this is no longer the case, having a ship land on a ground vehicle, repair it, and then release it will take time. In an active battle, having the ship on the ground for this long will be an issue when facing competent opponents. The assault variant is likely to land, retrieve the ground vehicles, fly to a safe location to repair, and then redeliver them, which poses its own issues in addition to being redundant. These features make it suitable for attacking bases or engaging in ground battles, but its advantages do not outweigh its sacrifices at this stage, in my opinion. Reading over the descriptions of both versions, I can’t shake the feeling that they will not have pilot-controlled guns. I don’t know if the command module guns will be acceptable, but even if they are, it will be awkward to use them due to being off-center and having the front of the ship extend past the guns. It does have missiles. The C series has pilot-controlled guns but not missiles. This gives the Ironclad an advantage. As a pirate, if you stop to fight in a C2, you’ve already lost. Smaller ships can easily avoid them and take out an unaccompanied C2. The best tactic is to jump, which will deplete your shields. The Ironclad, being able to fire missiles, puts the enemy at a disadvantage as they will need to avoid those missiles, giving the Ironclad pilot a window to escape.
The C2 and M2 have a more aerodynamic form. They are likely to be more useful in the atmosphere and more maneuverable both in and out of space. However, I expect them to be slower in a straight line than the Ironclad. I also expect the C2 and M2 to have a significantly smaller footprint than the Ironclad, though this is just speculation. As stated, the C2 and M2 have pilot-controlled guns, possibly hinting at significantly better maneuverability than the "brick" that is the Ironclad. However, as mentioned, I expect these pilot-controlled guns to be less advantageous than the Ironclad's missile capability. The C2 has less than half the cargo capacity of the Ironclad base, and its sloped ceiling makes the boxes more difficult to load. From what I value as a logistics pirate, the Ironclad's $80 increase from the C2 is well worth it, and I expect the price to significantly increase closer to its release. Based on my preferences in a ship, I cannot see how the C2 is a contender anymore. I wonder how CIG will nerf the Ironclad.
Great video. Really like your style and real-time notation!
Glad you liked it! Good to keep in mind for future videos
the ironclad assault with an A2 invading a base would be insane.
Good video
Thank you bro!
I'm getting the base Ironclad. I'm only interested in cargo.
Ironclad base variant will be the better ship and daily driver for small group play over the Assault variant IMO. More standard day to day utility and interesting ways to make unique gameplay for the group. The Assault is to big IMO for its role outside of true scale military operations and those I see only happening through AI NPC generated scenarios. A smaller ship than even the Hercules that can carry a Nova tank and a dozen marines would be much more useful as you'd be able to deploy right up close to the enemy or in hard to reach locations safe from enemies retaliation strikes.
Yeah I find the Ironclad base variant to be more useful as well the room is nice for group operations and its just a good hauler that sits in between the C2 and the Hull-C
Good video but could be longer
Yeah I was rushed in putting the video out, the editing needed a bit more love and breaks, but thanks man! I will improve next time!
@@AchillesStyx you brought up a lot of good points and you seem to have some skill in mathematics and design. In my opinion lean into that. Watching this I could not help but feel there was a wealth of knowledge waiting to be shared.
@@AchillesStyx These are my thoughts on the Ironclad variants. The base variant should be more expensive than the assault variant. The base is a cargo ship. When handheld tractor beam utility is reduced, this will become a valuable feature to have. The assault variant does not have tractor beams and is likely to become just a ground assault delivery ship in the future due to this. In the event that you have to do a hot drop with ground assault vehicles, you will need extra ships, not extra guns. Both variants are likely to perform poorly in the atmosphere, making them equivalent to shooting the broad side of a barn.
As you will need support to deliver ground vehicles, the base variant, with its cargo capacity and ability to deliver two extra tanks, is the better option. Repairing ground vehicles is currently pointless; they are either operational or destroyed. In the future, when this is no longer the case, having a ship land on a ground vehicle, repair it, and then release it will take time. In an active battle, having the ship on the ground for this long will be an issue when facing competent opponents. The assault variant is likely to land, retrieve the ground vehicles, fly to a safe location to repair, and then redeliver them, which poses its own issues in addition to being redundant. These features make it suitable for attacking bases or engaging in ground battles, but its advantages do not outweigh its sacrifices at this stage, in my opinion.
Reading over the descriptions of both versions, I can’t shake the feeling that they will not have pilot-controlled guns. I don’t know if the command module guns will be acceptable, but even if they are, it will be awkward to use them due to being off-center and having the front of the ship extend past the guns. It does have missiles. The C series has pilot-controlled guns but not missiles. This gives the Ironclad an advantage. As a pirate, if you stop to fight in a C2, you’ve already lost. Smaller ships can easily avoid them and take out an unaccompanied C2. The best tactic is to jump, which will deplete your shields. The Ironclad, being able to fire missiles, puts the enemy at a disadvantage as they will need to avoid those missiles, giving the Ironclad pilot a window to escape.
The C2 and M2 have a more aerodynamic form. They are likely to be more useful in the atmosphere and more maneuverable both in and out of space. However, I expect them to be slower in a straight line than the Ironclad. I also expect the C2 and M2 to have a significantly smaller footprint than the Ironclad, though this is just speculation. As stated, the C2 and M2 have pilot-controlled guns, possibly hinting at significantly better maneuverability than the "brick" that is the Ironclad. However, as mentioned, I expect these pilot-controlled guns to be less advantageous than the Ironclad's missile capability. The C2 has less than half the cargo capacity of the Ironclad base, and its sloped ceiling makes the boxes more difficult to load.
From what I value as a logistics pirate, the Ironclad's $80 increase from the C2 is well worth it, and I expect the price to significantly increase closer to its release. Based on my preferences in a ship, I cannot see how the C2 is a contender anymore. I wonder how CIG will nerf the Ironclad.
@@Nmyoutube821 Thanks for pointing it out! thats means alot!